February 16, 2007

What I ... failed to understand was how much McEwan and I would stick out. I was aware that I didn't exactly fit the image people have of bloggers who join campaigns -- the stereotype being 30-something nerdy young white men who wear khakis and obsess over crafting their Act Blue lists. I wasn't aware that not fitting the image would attract so much negative attention. In fact, I mostly saw this all as a baby step in the direction of diversity, since McEwan and I differed from the stereotype mostly by being female and by being outspoken feminists....

When you've got a mark that you're aiming to humiliate publicly, it helps if she's young and female and doesn't know her place....

One question that's hard to avoid is how much of the venom had to do with the fact that McEwan and I were young women entering into a field (Internet communications) that's viewed as almost monolithically masculine. From my vantage point, it appeared that sexism was one of the primary motivating energies behind the campaign....

Regardless of its motive, the result of the smear campaign was to send a loud, clear signal to young feminist women. It tells them that campaigning for Democratic candidates, and particularly doing so in positions that would help the candidate connect with young feminist communities like the one that thrives in the blogosphere, is a scary, risky prospect.

I think Marcotte goes way too far blaming sexism for her troubles, but there is still some truth to it. I've seen plenty of attacks on me that have the odor of sexism. I think there is a sense out there that the blogosphere belongs to the guys and the women are interlopers. Rationally, most guys will say that's not true, but I think they still have that prejudice, that instinctive reaction: Who does she think she is? Who let her in here? And I readily admit that some of what I think is my own imagination, but I've read enough things about me to believe it.

But the blogosphere is a rough place, and people use whatever tools they can grab to make their arguments and sex is a particularly useful rhetorical device. Marcotte uses it, I use it, and so do a lot of guys. It's one way to write in the blogosphere, and it's often overdone. Sometimes there really is sexism, and when you see it, it's one more thing you can write about. But if you don't write about it well -- if you overdo it, as Marcotte does here -- you're just setting up another wave of attacks.

ADDED: Dr. Helen doesn't really agree with me, but she makes points that I concede are excellent:

Sexism is what got Marcotte hired in the first place -- she and her co-blogger were hired because they were women, and Edwards as well as the bloggers mistakenly believed that because they were women, they could get away with anything. No self-respecting politician would have hired a man who talked and acted like a deranged teen who spouted off at the mouth as if he were a sexually abused borderline using the internet as a weapon against all that angered him....

As for the notion that the blogosphere is full of sexism and men just don't realize it, I think the Professor should take a real look at who some of these sexist comments are made by. I, for one, have noticed that as many sexist and nasty comments on my blog are written by females as by males....

My experience is of blogs written by men who seem to have a regular practice of selecting posts of mine to react to -- usually with almost no substance, but just rank name calling, as if they thought they could chase me out of the blogosphere by making it an intolerably rough place. I do get negative things from women, but much of this is sexist too -- in that special sexist way where women who like to call themselves feminist feel complete outrage toward women who don't tow the line and support the Democratic Party across the board. These women become most vicious when you point out feminist values that run counter to Democratic Party interests.

Anyway, Dr. Helen seems to think I'm condemning a lot more people than I am. I'm not saying everyone is sexist or all men are sexist, just that I think there's a lot of sexism on the web and I've experienced a lot of it personally. I guess, once again, I'm taking the middle position on this. Marcotte sees too much sexism, Dr. Helen too little, and I'm seeing the right amount.

CORRECTION: That's toe the line, not tow the line. It's about standing in the right spot, not pulling anything.

99 comments:

Marcotte can dish out the venom, but she sure can't take any back, can she? She went out of her way to emphasize and promote her own sexuality (not her own gender, her own sexuality)... aggressively. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but if some of the criticism that comes back her way has sexual overtones, I don't see where that's illegitimate, given the nature of her writings.

Even your faint almost-defense of Marcotte gives her too much credit, Ann.

Also, I've not seen a single admission by Marcotte that any of the criticisms against her may have some validity. She, as far as I can tell, lacks any realization that good, decent people may have been truly offended, with good reason, by the vilest of her slurs and slanders against Catholics and Christians in general.

If she were to acknowledge this, I might be more inclined to waste time parsing through the complaints against her to see which are legitimate and which are based on sexism, but not until then. She is, as she always has, using the improper behavior of a few to slander the many, refusing to admit any distinction between the few and the many.

Her post you cite is just one more example of her pernicious stereotyping.

"It tells them that campaigning for Democratic candidates, and particularly doing so in positions that would help the candidate connect with young feminist communities like the one that thrives in the blogosphere, is a scary, risky prospect."

Does Ms. Marcotte mean that connection to "young feminist communities" requires invective that many ordinary people interpret as anti-religious bigotry? Does she mean that such connection is only possible using profanity? If she believes these things then she got what she deserved.

Here's a bit of wisdom from a long departed businessperson published in a company training guide: "The burden of communication is on the supplier of the service." Yes, customers misinterpret what is told them all the time. If you're selling something, that's your problem. Deal with it.

Even if there is truth to Ms. Marcotte's claim, it's her problem to deal with it. Successful people recognize that sort of thing and act accordingly. Whining about being perceived in a certain way, however true, is a hallmark of people who don't get very far in this world.

The first and last bastion of self-delusion for feminists is sexism. Of course, this forms the basis for their own self-loathing and perpetuates their mission of self-pity. directing their venom at men specifically and other women generally who apparently just don't get it.

Marcotte and McEwan come across as angry and emotional. They could not fine-tune their agenda to make it palatable to the majority of humanity who disagree with them. Their subjects did not come across as debateable. They were preachy and not teachy, so to speak, as the idea of teachable moments was lost on them.

Interesting that there appears to be more men on the Althouse site than women, but that is a story for later. Are women more judgmental about accomplished women than men?

I have seen the perverts at work on other websites, Malkin comes quickly to mind. In her case, the remarks were not only sexist but racist. The perverts that troll these sites are the same ones that skulk around the perimeter of the neighborhood, town square, or mall for which civilized society must remain constantly vigilant. As a man, I find that behavior as offensive and personally repugnant as the women do.

The point being that men and women share common definitions of decency, respectability, accountability, and values. In the world of Marcotte/McEwan, no such commonality exists, only battle lines. Marcotte is unable, or unwilling, to make the leap of faith from emotionalism to the terrifying world of pragmatism and logic.

Trolls are the 'catcalls' we all experience, in one manner or another, while passing by the construction site of life.

Marcotte is incredibly sexist and chauvinistic and goes out of her way in her writings to demean men. She IS a bigot and and uses her sense of victimhood and entitlement as a cudgel with which to beat her enemies, both real and perceived.

She used her 'potty' mouth to garner attention. Now the heat is too much. Well, boo hoo, woe is me.

This lady has enormous issues entangled around religion and sex. Her desire is for some sort of martyrdom and is, such as it is, in her eyes and those of her 'followers', being fullfilled. She uses her blogging as some sort of therapy tool.

The problem for her, and to a certain extent you Ann, is that you think some insults are off limits. Truth is, some people reach for whatever is handy to throw at you. There is no more significance to someone insulting you gender than there is calling you any other name. It's just what some people do when they're up against the wall.

Taking an insult out of context (amusing concept) is kind of silly. If someone wants to hurt you, they will grab whatever is hurtful and use it.

I find the idea that someone who is out to hurt you needs to respect your gender is fairly delusional. It might be reprehensible and beyond the pale, but it is not, in and of itself, significant...

Rationally, most guys will say that's not true, but I think they still have that prejudice, that instinctive reaction: Who does she think she is? Who let her in here?

This would be true if, and only if, all of them did it. They don't, hence your logic fails. You have also read enough supportive posts by men to have been dissuaded by now that "they" still have that prejudice.

It's pretty damn sexist of you to say "but I think they still have that prejudice". Please explain just how you know their inner thoughts? Or mine. We are individuals, not masses.

One of the things that made me start viewing the feminist movement with suspicion was their continued idea that, regardless of what I did and said, they knew that deep inside I was still a sexist, potential rapist, potential beater, etc, etc, etc.

When you claim to know the inner workings of someone making a statement about themselves to be other than what they say and do, well, you cross the line into unrelenting bigotry.

Well, you know, it couldn't be her own fault that these things have happened. It must be for some other reason.

If you're going to insult someone so it sticks, you have to know what they're sensitive to. Ms. Marcotte (and Prof. Althouse to some extent) are highly sensitive to sexist commentary. Degrading sexist comments are therefore effective -- they really remember them. Of course, there's always the possibility that your insult will be waved off with a he's just a sexist a-hole; with some people that's a chance I'm willing to take.

What's sexist is the constant crying of "sexism" by feminists, yes including Ann Althouse (though she's nowhere near as bad about this as many).

It's an appeal for special standards and, essentially, a sort of at least emotional and moral affirmative action.

Anytime women or often enough A woman does less well at anything or lag in any way the cry of sexism is heard long and loud often with little more evidence than the lagging. Anytime men lag or are falling behind (current high school graduation rates and overall college admissions) it's a ho hum affair not worthy of much attention for most. About time!! is the usual reaction, though usually left unexpressed.

I'm tired of Amanda Marcotte. Not because she's female. Not because she's a feminist (IF she really is a feminist). I'm tired of Amanda Marcotte because she has nothing new or interesting to say.

I want to know what John Edwards has to say about sexism, bloggers, the netroots, etc. How did he come to the decision to hire these bloggers in the first place? how does he feel about their resignations?Has he spoken about such things? What is he going to do about them if he's elected president? Has he any balls at all?

I offered some cover for Marcotte and Mcewan in one of the previous posts on this subject. I thought, and still think, that the response to their rants was disproportionate.

So I'm not surprised that Marcotte is taking away the wrong lessons from her flame-out, though her self-absorption is rather astonishing. She is "outspoken"; her opponents are "aggressive" and "mysogynistic". She writes "satire"; her opponents do "hit jobs".

Of course, when you've got a mark that you're aiming to humiliate publicly, it helps if she's thoughtless with her language, vile to people who disagree with her, and given to misrepresenting their viewpoints...

So in the end I'm torn between having zero sympathy for Marcotte but agreeing with her that the kind of personal onslaught she encountered (I'm thinking of the email onslaught) is bad for blogging and bad for politics. Raucous, frank discussion is better than scripted, empty phrases.

Of course, the takeaway for the political managers is stick with the script.

"Dishes it out, but can't take it" covrs it near-completely. Marcotte is complaining that she's been subjected to the very same vituperation she's spent years dishing out. (But hers was justified, of course!) Feh.

There's an old Trumanism on politics involving heat and kitchens, but even alluding to it would probably make me a sexist male Godarchy pig. Oops, too late!

She published coments about how a Republican's penis would never get near her vagina, and she commented favorably at length regarding the term "Godbag", a conflation of the words God and douche bag used as shorthand for all Christians (and perhaps Jews and Muslims, too), not just Catholics.

The most astonishing thing about all this is that so many posters can't fathom how outrageous it was for a serious contender for the Presidency to hire such a person.

Would it have been appropriate for Adlai Stevenson to hire Moms Mabley, for Kennedy to hire Lenny Bruce,for Harry Truman to hire Anais Nin, or for LBJ to hire Al Goldstein?

These two landed smack dab right on top of my bias. When women are vulgar and foul-mouthed, I lose all respect. (Not talking about just one word, but serial nastiness.)

I think it's wrong when men do it -- but with women, I feel like "shouldn't they know better?"

When public spheres are saturated with nasty language and salty topics, women (and children) are the first to pay the price.

Now even a blogger who is a lady can draw comments that are beyond the pale...but at least there's a "hey, you're out of line!" response that is clear on its face.

But these two? A lot of the responses (not talking about the threats of violence) are of the same caliber -- nasty, profane, personal. There's no defense left against the eroding discussion. It becomes a verbal street fight, whereby the nastiest thugs use any tactic and then question the motives of their opponents. Would be funny if not so pathetic.

But Marcotte herself has several -isms to answer for. Some women (Duke rape accuser) are worthy, other women (Virgin Mary) are not. One is a victim, the other a tool to be used. Heck, look how she writes about Christian women -- they're not truly women, in her book.

For whatever reason, Marcotte is obsessed with the fear of being controlled by a man, and anything that even whiffs of the 1950's stereotype is worthy of mockery. Fine. Whatever.

But the fact that Bill Donohue (patriarchal stereotype) brought down her gig with John Edwards (new, modern man of a feminine sort) will fuel her anger for years to come.

Professor Althouse's post itself could be considered sexist, referencing females as "women" and males as "guys". I realize that might be nit-picky, and as a "guy", I'm not offended, but could you imagine a post referencing males as "men" and females as "gals" or "females" or anything else other than "women"?

Ann said: "I think there is a sense out there that the blogosphere belongs to the guys and the women are interlopers. Rationally, most guys will say that's not true, but I think they still have that prejudice, that instinctive reaction: Who does she think she is? Who let her in here? And I readily admit that some of what I think is my own imagination, but I've read enough things about me to believe it."

I suppose this belief of yours is inevitable, given your experiences, but it is disappointing, none the less. I think Oligonicella put my thoughts better than I can myself. I'll just add the rhetorical question; You do know you can't read minds, don't you?

Ann, the blogosphere is a realm of ideas, arguments and rhetoric. Unless you post a picture of yourself in bikini, sex is unlikely to enter male readers' minds. Period.

Of course one can't prove a negative -- that men online AREN'T unconciously sexist. But the success of Althouse, Arianna, Wonkette, Firedoglake, etc. weighs against this theory.

As a male reader, I find it patronizing to read "most guys will say that's not true, but I think they still have that prejudice." Yes, and all whites are racist even though they don't know it. The tired line is straight out of a Gender Studies class for impressionable freshman.

My BS meter shot into the red at the suggestion that sexism played a role in Marcotte's dismissal. Please. She was fired because she behaved unprofessionally. A male staffer who blogged about the "sticky, white hot seed of the Holy Ghost" and aborting Jesus would've been terminated too.

Fact is, she still thinks the LAX players are guilty of rape and should be convicted and imprisoned. No, I can't see why anyone might not like that.

Michelle Malkin admitted she was wrong but didn't apologize

Because Marcotte has such a deeply-held personal belief about the importance of apologizing to other people across the aisle. That's why she does it so often.

Marcotte is entitled to corrections (everyone is), but if she won't ever apologize to people, why should anyone ever apologize to her?

Dan Riehl apparently thought it would speed my firing if he suggested that I was not as hot as "American Pie" actress Shannon Elizabeth

This makes Riehl sound like he acted illogically. No, Riehl posted that just for kicks, not to speed your firing.

the furor seemed as if it had ended when, after a day of official silence from the campaign as well as from us two bloggers, John Edwards announced that the campaign would keep us on, with press releases from McEwan and me stating that we had had no intention of insulting anyone's private beliefs

And what was the very next thing she did?

On Saturday, Feb. 11, during some rare downtime, I returned to personal blogging on Pandagon. I posted a review of the the film "Children of Men," noting that it had a new, nonsexist take on the story of the virgin birth.

She also claimed the currently-held view of the virgin birth is extremely sexist, involving God's not wanting to befoul himself by touching women or something.

Why would she, so soon after promising she didn't intend to insult Christianity, and so soon after Edwards put his credibility on the line for her, race out and post this?

All I can think of is that she wanted to humiliate and castrate John Edwards. It may have been a subconscious desire.

This whole Marcotte kerfuffle has been a big eye-opener for me. I'm not a radical feminist, but I thought they weren't very different from other kinds of radicals (which is to say, maybe a little socially awkward, but you can get along with them).

No, apparently radical feminists are dangerous insane man-hating bitches who will sabotage and attack any man, even the man they're working for, who personally tapped them to join his crew. Since left-wing feminists all across the blogosphere pretty much all seemed 100% in their support of Marcotte, even after she openly betrayed Edwards, I think it's safe to say this isn't just a characteristic of one woman, but reflects radical feminists in general.

There are few things like having Bill O'Reilly work himself into a pearl-clutching fit

There are few things like having Amanda Marcotte work herself into a nipple-twisting fit.

Let me add that I feel really sorry for Marcotte. The level of self-delusion, insulated securely by anger, is sad.

The most recent article in Salon solidifies her victimhood.

It's gotta hurt to gain such a position and then to have it basically snatched away due to the actions of those you feel are the problem in the first place. But Marcotte has created a virtual castle around herself wherein she was the knight on the white charger, leading the fight against the hordes.

She was only a part-time blogger...willing to help the Edwards' campaign...don't people understand Pandagon was a personal blog?...she didn't fit the stereotype of a political staffer...her writings were only satirical...etc.

It's sad. Anger got her into this, and now will be her closest friend.

There are few things like having Bill O'Reilly work himself into a pearl-clutching fit

Were those Marcotte's original words? Because I've seen the pearl-clutching line used on several other blogs by her defenders [ie. appears that her defenders are all circulating the same talking points. Astro-turfing].

I think she is showing her inability to rationally view the world. And that inability is what was under my personal opinion as to why the Edwards campaign was not smart to hire her in the first place.

I would contrast her position that it is because she is woman (hear her roar) that she was attacked with McEwan's position that anyone devoutly religious leads a pitiable life because they are always looking for slights and discrimination where there are none.

They both exposed bigotry in their writings, were called on it and are no longer in the Edwards campaign because of it. The fact that the bigotry the exposed is widely accepted on the left doesn't change the fact it is bigotry.

1. Marcotte's venom and bile was seen by many as being more than just anti-religiuous. She also was anti-GOP, anti-white male, anti-, anti-

2. given this quote below, I would be interested in finding out who in the Edwards campaign hired them, where they sat in the org chart and who fired them.

I was aware that I didn't exactly fit the image people have of bloggers who join campaigns -- the stereotype being 30-something nerdy young white men who wear khakis and obsess over crafting their Act Blue lists. I wasn't aware that not fitting the image would attract so much negative attention. In fact, I mostly saw this all as a baby step in the direction of diversity, since McEwan and I differed from the stereotype mostly by being female and by being outspoken feminists....

In my notional camapign org chart, it seems to me that Marcotte could have been in the parts of the organization called:

a. Communications / Media relations. This area is hardly dominated by sexist males, having a large leavening of women and metro-sexuals

b. Infrastructure/internet campaign/etc. This would be the geeky area. the 30ish white male, policy wonk / tech geek area. more sexist, I grant you

Marcotte thinks her hiring by the Edwards campaign was a breaking through of barriers by/for women?

Quick--show of hands: How many people can think of at least one or two (I can think of more than that, but let's keep it simple) women intensely involved in political campaigns, even with great authority, going back at least 20 years? How many people think that it's also a breakthrough for "young" people (in their 20s) to be involved in political campaigns? For that matter, in staff positions in D.C.? Heck, even via clerkships at the Supreme Court?

What the hell is she talking about?

Being hired based on blogging credentials--yeah, that's part of a new thing. Being hired despite having views expressed in beyond edgy ways, that's new. But the rest?

Like other commenters here, I don't think that sexism was the driving force behind the attack - I think it was politics and genuine offense, followed by feigned offense for the sake of politics. (Does that make sense?)

But certainly some of the attacks on those gals were sexist. Some of those attacks came from genuinely sexist people; some were just throwing whatever ammunition they had handy; and some of the attacks were seen as sexist by the two bloggers because they are ultrasensitive to perceived sexism. I think that's in part because, as Madison Man said, they couldn't possibly be responsible for screwing up for themselves; it had to have been someone else's fault.

This idea that the blogosphere is sexist bugs me. I've heard it a lot. I think the fact that there aren't as many prominent female political bloggers as males is simply a numbers game - the number of really serious political hounds who are female v. male is probably proportionate to their percentage population in the blogosphere. As for prominence, some of that is luck, some is skill, and some is being on good terms (ideologically or acquaintance-wise) with a big-hitter like Instapundit. Prof. Althouse starting getting most of her attention when Glenn started linking to her. She was putting out a quality product before that; but a lot of people weren't seeing it. I'm sure there are a lot of high-quality female political bloggers who aren't as prominent because they haven't been noticed yet - just as there are lots of males in the same situation. So I think it has to do with percentages and luck, more than sexism.

DMC wrote: "Unless you post a picture of yourself in bikini, sex is unlikely to enter male readers' minds. Period."

Well, I disagree (hot sex.) I think that many of us men (wife in nighty) may occasionally (heels over head) think about sex more often (how long till I get home?)

Seriously, the portion of our brain which responds to sexually stimulating visual information is 2.5 times larger than the same portion of a woman's brain. We are neurologically compelled to think about sex.

But what does that have to do with these two bigots getting fired? To me, their gender is immaterial. It is their bigotry. Men making bigoted responses would have been fired as well, wouldn't they?

Also, I have only noticed one gender comment here, it referred to Marcotte's vulgar posts. Honestly, I think I would have been MORE offended by a guy writing about his penis the way Marcotte did her vagina. But that is just me.

So I am not buying that this is sexist acting out. Well, at least not on the part of these blogger's critics.

The righties worst nightmare of women and black people in charge of Congress has manifested into hatred and fear of women and black people in power. Shocking! I think Marcotte should renounce her whiteness. Or something.

I'm not sure what planet Marcotte is living on, but it isn't this one. From the last page of the Salon piece (emphasis added):

The right blogosphere is mostly a sideshow act for the Republican Party, providing a cheap source of noise and noncontroversies to help professional shills like the Catholic League and the Heritage Foundation degrade the political discourse in this country...

Because we all know that Republican candidates have bloggers on-staff that routinely spew profanity and anti-religious vitriol on a regular basis, right? And when left-wing bloggers do that, it's not degrading a bit!

This one takes the cake, though:I think the left blogosphere has a lot more substance to it. ... They helped Jim Webb become a senator and Joe Lieberman become an Independent.

The left blogosphere would've been happy if Lieberman had been hit by a bus, and now she's taking credit for "helping" him "become an Indepedent"? Insane.

Is it true that vestiges of sexism still linger in our society? Of course. But Marcotte's assertion that sexism is the chief motivation for the negative response to her position in the Edwards' campain is absurd. I don't think anyone, reading Marcotte's rants, thought Who does she think she is, this uppity female?

On the contrary, we all thought: Why would Edwards hire such an idiot?

There is some truth to it? There would only be "some truth" to it if there was any doubt that a male blogger who had said the same bizare and obscene things would have somehow been spared scruitiny. Not a chance. In fact a man who was that shrill would have never been hired, especially if he said as nasty of things about women as she did about men. If anything Marcotte benifited from being a woman. Some truth to it? Stop deluding yourself Ann.

If you're asking if I've had direct campaign experience, the answer is no.

One of the pieces of the puzzle regarding this story that has most fascinated me is the "what did the Edwards campaign know about Marcotte's posts, who might/should have known the history, who wields power in the internet area" etc. etc. I've ruminated on that as an aside on a couple of the posts I did on this flap over at Done With Mirrors. I say--ruminate, and I mean with specific disclaimers that I'm talking sheer speculation, not to be confused with fact, and to be weighted accordingly.

That said: I'm referring to wondering about Elizabeth Edwards' role. The other day, in a comments thread attached to one of those posts, Ruth Anne Adams asked me specifically about why I was thinking and wondering with regard to E.E. I obliged her by providing a series of links in a series of comments.

I don't want to link clutter here, because a) it's not my blog and b) I don't know how many are interested in this line of thinking. So if you are interested, may I suggest you go to this this post and pull up the comments, look for Ruth Anne's query, and scroll down from there.

reader_iam said... Also, Drill Sgt., Marcotte maintains she resigned, and there has been no evidence provided to prove otherwise..

Fine, though your point is taken, she almost can't have it both ways. She wasn't fired by sexist men, but she was made to feel unwelcome, and her Feminist feelings were hurt by 30ish geeks? So she quit? Give me a break :)

This is also true with regard to McEwan, who, IMO, is a separate case and whose situation etc. should be analyzed separately. As I said, IMO. Same sort of thing here. Sexism, would be the application of generic bias based on gender. If you treat separately, it's hard to establish the generic bias. She almost has to pull both cases together in folks mind to make it generic, rather than individual judgments on 2 different sets of facts.

Back on my original topic, from your general experiences, wouldn't you agree however that the communications / media relations / public affairs work areas are perhaps less "sexist" than the average location, with a higher percentage of women in mgt positions?

Conservatives absolutely do not fear women and black people in charge of Congress. That's a disgusting thing to say. Anyone who says such a thing is projecting a caricature onto the other and shows a lack of understanding and an incapability to understand people who hold different views.

In short, Lunch, if you are serious, you have shown yourself to be an intellectually limited bigot.

Huh. I'm surprising myself in having a bit of a tough time giving you a blanket "yes" or "no" answer, Drill Sgt. (What's that about, I'm asking myself? Definitions of sexism? Whether management positions are the best benchmark? Well, whatever.)

Anecdotally, given your comparison, the short answer is "probably," and--without looking up some stats about management positions, size of business and the intersection of org charts--trending more so. It's certainly improved since I started out.

Well, and I don't think it's surprising that we'd find women more represented in fields involving communication, such as those to which you refer. Just not sure what I'd extrapolate from that in terms of sexism or not. I've involved in organizations with lots of women, but where the real power (and power positions, whether the job title reflected that or not) lay with a fewer number of men. And I've been involved in organizations with many more men than women, but where there appeared to be low leves of sexism. Maybe this is part of my stumbling block in giving a short, blanket answer. (Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the "average" location.)

In any case, I certainly think things are a lot better for women in the professional world overall, in terms of opportunity and achievement, than they were when I was a kid (I'm almost 46).

FWIW, I don't personally see Marcotte's having to leave the Edwards campaign(whether by resignation or whatever) as stemming from sexism. That strikes me as calling something a nail just because your favorite tool is a hammer.

I do think that some of the language used to denounce both women was sexist--and I also think Marcotte, in particular, hasn't hesitated in the past to use sexist language against women she doesn't agree with. Which, I'll agree, puts her in a bit of an awkward place when she then complains. On the other hand, I know a lot of women who would utterly disagree with my premise that women can be sexist when talking about other women (not to mention against men). Not a simple issue, in some respects.

I do think that some of the language used to denounce both women was sexist

Could you give an example of such language being used by one of the people that Marcotte has blamed for the so-called "smear campaign"? Certainly you could find blog commenters making such remarks, and undoubtedly she, like all public figures with an email address, got lots of email from bigots -- but is there a quote from, say, Malkin or Donohue that uses sexist language?

Still, though, I think Marcotte had a point in one respect. Inasmuch as she clearly thinks that true feminism involves seething hatred of men (particularly the white kind) and traditional religions, her critics were indeed sending a message that "feminists" aren't welcome in the political arena.

I agree with Revenant. Please let's see some examples of all this sexism. After all, it's all occurred in the blogosphere, so it all should be written down.

And if there are no examples -- and I'm betting there aren't -- then please let's everyone can it with this spectacle of sexism. Here is a person who wrote a lot of dumb things degrading to many people and she paid for it. It's not sexism. It's screwupism. And we need more screwupism, not less.

Naked Lunch (great name by the way)The righties worst nightmare of women and black people in charge of Congress has manifested into hatred and fear of women and black people in power.

It was us righties that Johnson turned to to pass the Voters Rights Act when you lefties were too scarred or racist to do so.

It was us righties that had the first black Sec of State. And the second.

It was you lefties that had a terrorist branch of your party called the KKK in reconstruction. It was a righty, Grant, who chased them down like the dogs they were. He would have ended the organization and avoided much of Jim Crow if the country had not grown tired of chasing terrorists (sound familiar?)

OK, some of this is ancient history, but us righties fear Senator Clinton because she is a socialist, not because of her plumbing.

Sorry, but I think that referring to blog comments or emailers to bloggers as a source of sexist statements is perfectly legitimate, as is including writers of the same as example of "denouncers."

And, respectfully, I feel you're redefining the scope of what I said

I do think that some of the language used to denounce both women was sexist

with the bolded words:

Could you give an example of such language being used by one of the people that Marcotte has blamed for the so-called "smear campaign"?

You're making that part of what I said, which is redefining my comment to make it more particular than I either meant or--more important--wrote it. Had I been specifically accusing, for example, Donohue of that, I would have said so.

That said, it is true that I have no use for Donohue, for reasons that predate this latest brouhaha, and I have acknowledged that at least in comments, if not actually posts, where I blog. HOWEVER--and this is a big HOWEVER--this is an "and", not an "or": I can find both Marcotte and Donohue odious. One opinion doesn't cancel out the other, and the two opinions don't even have to be relevant to the other.

As for examples, OK, I suppose can go back through the many blog posts and associated comments threads from all over the place over the last week and do some culling for you. I'd prefer not to, since, among other things, I'd be re-reading such gems as:

"Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven't found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn't want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears..."

Perhaps you don't find that sort of thing sexist. I do. If we disagree about that, and I realize that there are people who do disagree with that, there's probably not a whole of good to be mined in debating the point. It's probably best to just leave it at disagreeing.

Also, before I go around collecting examples for you (which, at least at one place, is going to be a challenge since the site keeps going down; I just checked), I'd like to know if you consider the example I gave to be an example of sexist language.

If it isn't--and truly, with all due respect--there is no point in my spending the time. Again, we should just leave it there.

And if there are no examples -- and I'm betting there aren't --

I did notice that bit, by the way: if I chose, I could interpret that as being a bit insulting (though emphatically not sexist!! Heh). 7 Machos, however much you may disagree with me, surely you've noticed over time that I do not quote or make references lightly, nor do I fail to do homework.

Where I was going with "Source" is that if you got the quote off of some random comment, I don't really think that counts. That's akin to saying that sexism exists and because it exists, it must be at issue here.

I add that I think this Marcotte person is one of the most sexist people I have ever encountered.

How about this reader: how about something sexist from a remotely reputable blogger, with a blog.

Random examples in a comment thread prove my point. If I say there is no Nazism in the United States and you point me to a rally where there were 16 demonstrators, 500 people protesting the demonstration, and 100 police officers protecting the Nazis, I say to you: there is no Nazism in the United States.

The suggestion that there is sexism implies that there has been some level of it beyond a few examples in comment threads -- some level of permeation or saturation. That's just not the case. The biggest sexist, bigot, and racist in this whole miniscule affair has been far and away this Marcotte person.

I have a few others ready so far from a single comments section over at Shakespeare's Sister, but seriously, folks--do I hafta???

Nah, I have no doubt that trolls attacked both bloggers with sexually loaded insults. But its a bit of a stretch the way they link those remarks to some right-wing crowd, without any evidence.

But I'm more interested in the phantom "veiled" threats that they claim forced them to quit. The worst I've seen was an obnoxious regret that they hadn't been in Iraq to experience Saddam's rape rooms firsthand. Horrible, but hardly threatening.

I think both are faking. And wondering if FBI was notified of such threats? I mean, if they took the death "threats" seriously enough to quit their jobs, then surely they took the death "threats" seriously enough to report to law enforcement?

I think Amanda would have been OK if she had apologized upfront for the tone and wording of her comments about sex, the Virgin Mary, and so on. Her failure to do so indicates that she doesn't really fathom that you cannot (yet, anyway) have mainstream political discourse in this country involving individuals who brag about their sexual organs, their sex life, and who taunt others about theirs, or their religious beliefs. I mean, it's really rather simple.

Althouse's last post on this topic was about the resignation of Shakespeare's Sister's McEwan. In the comments everyone continued talking about Amanada Marcotte's inflammatory posts, not McEwan's.

I don't read either blog, and I'm confused why McEwan is treated as if she's the same person as Marcotte.

I realize they're friends and sort of a team. But as far as I can tell, all McEwan did was refer to Bush's base as "wingnut Christo-fascists" and post this rant about gay adoption.

While it may be poorly written and needlessly vulgar, it's not really that bad a post, and is actually ranting against anti-gay bigotry.

So why is she lumped in as exactly the same as Marcotte? By people who wanna rush to call her a bigot while not seeming to care about anti-gay agendas from the Religious Right.

Like I said, I don't read her blog, and I'm sure if I did I'd find all kinds of stuff that would bug me because she's on the Hard Left and I'm certainly not.

But did she deserve to be forced to resign? Does she deserve to be treated as if she said things that only Marcotte did? Is it because she defends Marcotte? Am I missing something?

Doesn't seem just to me, and she probably was the second to resign because she was hoping that after Marcotte stepped aside that would be the end of it. Maybe one scalp should've been enough. IMHO.

As far as the sexism claim, Althouse has a valid point in general but Marcotte makes a poor example. Marcotte is clearly a hater of white males, so she's the sexist one. And what she posted would've brought heat no matter what her gender was. She knew that when she posted the inflammatory rants.

Patrick Martin said... Also, I've not seen a single admission by Marcotte that any of the criticisms against her may have some validity.

Agreed. But I've also seen very little acknowledgement from the Catholics in these comments threads that underlying her vulgar anti-Catholicism cathartic ranting was that a lot of people feel their beliefs, rights, and in some casdes their lives are threatened by Catholic groups that have a lot of influence in politics in America and around the world.

In these threads it has sounded as if Catholics do not wanna pause for one second and think about why it is people might feel fearful of powerful, political elements with Catholicism.

The Catholic Church has much to answer for. Its Popes have had to issue public apologies to the entire world, and will likely have to again. Catholic groups are heavily involved in politics.

Marcotte's style of attack and mockery may make her the worst, and most counterproductive, spokeswoman for those who who wanna push back against some of the things some Catholics are up to. But it would've been nice to see some of the Catholics offended by Marcotte to - on their own, and putting Marcotte's words aside - go further than just calling her a bigot, and to do some self-critical examination about the underlying fears of Catholicism that motivate such rants.

As a Catholic (but not a very devout one) I wasn't offended by her comments, and I didn't call her a bigot. However, you cannot just glide onto the national stage without disowning at least the tone of such attacks. That's a political reality, the rest is just garnish.

At the same time, her references to her own sexuality were so vulgar, and again, I didn't think they were offensive, yet at the same time that kind of vulgarity is just not appropriate without disowning in the public sphere.

I am aware that some Catholic organizer harassed her. But that stuff, and this other stuff, would have come out eventually. She had a chance to transit from being an immature vulgar blogger to a more establishmentarian blogger with, perhaps, more nuanced rhetorical and persuasive skills. To do that would have required distancing her self, at minimum, from some of this other stuff. However she refused to accept responsibility or apologize for anything. And then she quit.

hmmmm. Nevermind that reparative therapy has been proven to lead to increased rates of depression and higher suicide rates. Dr. Helen condemns the American Psychology Association for condemning the psychiatric equivalent of creationism.

Lad -- Does that have anything to do with anything here? Is this thread about gayness? I mean, I know it's the single-most important topic of all time, ever, but aren't we talking about a lesser topic right now?

But when Edwards made his statement backing the two bloggers, and they both apologized, he said he did not believe they intended to be offensive.

Then the crazy bitch Marcotte betrayed Edwards by--at the very first free time she had--posting an offensive take on the Christian virgin birth idea. It was similar to the "hot, white, sticky" post that got her in trouble in the first place in that it suggested mainstream Christianity was inherently sexist.

After Marcotte resigned, she promised to go nuclear on her critics.

So what does Edwards say: that Marcotte wanted to be offensive all along but McEwan has no such desire? It doesn't add up. And McEwan hardly wants to be held up against Marcotte in a compare/contrast way (in which righties hail her behavior and encourage other women to shut up, while lefties see Marcotte as the real outspoken hero).

If Edwards had hired only McEwan, it would have all worked out, and no one would have gotten too bent out of shape.

But I've also seen very little acknowledgement from the Catholics in these comments threads that underlying her vulgar anti-Catholicism cathartic ranting was that a lot of people feel their beliefs, rights, and in some casdes their lives are threatened by Catholic groups that have a lot of influence in politics in America and around the world.

If you can give a single realistic example of how or why anyone should feel their beliefs, rights, or lives (!!!) are threatened by Catholics' involvement in politics in America, I would be very interested to read it. But I am not interesting in wading through a sewer to hear anyone's thoughts on any topic -- much less my religion -- a concept which obviously never occurred to Marcotte.

I believe that Marcotte and McEwan have received vicious emails, many of them blatantly sexist in their choice of language and insults. But can't we distinguish the parasitic commenters and anonymous emailers from the bloggers who are reporting on this situation? Marcotte herself posted excerpts of some of the vile stuff sent to her, and it's beyond the pale to think that she went to the trouble of composing it herself, although in tone and language some of it does resemble her own posts. I'm sure it's real, but the fact that a few dozen or a few hundred lunatics have email accounts doesn't translate to a generally sexist environment in the blogosphere.

I understand that Ann has been targetted by some male bloggers in typically sexist ways, but again, that's just evidence that some bloggers are idiots, not that sexism is rampant. The "how can she be any good at this, she's a woman" argument is ridiculous on its face, and any man stupid enough to make such an argument in public is only embarrassing himself.

Aside to DTL: You're the one who brought up the whole gay thing with your references to Dr. Helen and her views on so-called reparative therapy, then 7Machos calls you on your threadjacking, and then you accuse him of being gay? More evidence of your disconnection from reality.

joan: If you can give a single realistic example of how or why anyone should feel their beliefs, rights, or lives (!!!) are threatened by Catholics' involvement in politics....

An example is in my previous post: A Catholic group painted McEwan as a bigot over her post about gay adoption.

So a Catholic can say homosexuals are so unfit to be parents that a child is better off remaining an orphan? And if someone rants at them over it they can simply say, "You're a bigot; I'm a victim of unprovoked 'hate speech'; end of story"? Happily unconcerned that many perceive the Catholic Church to be offensive and hateful, too?

Here's a news story from Britain, that describes how the Catholic Church threatened to shut down adoption agencies if they have to consider gay couples as worthy parents. More on that at this link.

The second piece makes this point:

So why pick on gays? Is religion really about such selective intolerance and bigotry? It seems so. And who is going to suffer if they carry out the threat to close their adoption services if they aren’t allowed to opt out of the Act when it comes into force in April?

Why, the children, of course.

"It seems so." Is the Catholic Church in any way responsible for why it seems so? Yes.

Should those Catholics and other anti-gay religious groups who support pressuring governments over such matters get to claim they are shocked someone is pissed and says mean things to them? No. Those anti-gay people know they're offending people.

McEwan's post about attempts by religious groups to ban gay adoptions was used - strangely - as evidence she's a bigot. I was linked to that by Malkin, who wanted me to call her a bigot over that specific post, but didn't much care about the homophobic bigotries of certain religious groups that McEwan posted about.

People have asked why these two bloggers can dish it out but can't take it, and I agree. The same can be asked of many of the political religious groups. Or, at the very least, they could've spent two seconds showing concern that others think they, too, are bigots, before lecturing these two women to search their souls to understand why people got upset.

Joan - Ann posted a point from Dr. Helen about how she gets offensive posts. My point was that maybe she's not getting those because she's female, but she's getting them because she takes positions that her profession considers not only extreme, but dangerous.

When it involves extremist stuff like pressuring the U.S. and other governments not to use condoms to the full extent to slow down the spread of HIV in Africa, I'd use uglier words than "gosh" for such involvement in politics.

DTL, I was part of that discussion on Dr. Helen's blog, and you are mischaracterizing it. Dr. Helen's point was that the APA was attempting to tell PATIENTS what they could and could not work for. They were also refusing to consider the DATA regarding repairative therapy by refusing to give credit for ceus at training events that featured the treatment. IT is my understanding that the little data that exists on the "treatment" is not very promising . Color me not at all shocked.

At no time did Dr. Helen advocate "fixing" gays, because she has no agenda in that regard. At least none that I have ever read.

Being told what patients can and cannot ask for is a topic of some concern in our profession. In some states, you are REQUIRED to use a particular type of therapy for certain issues. Nice in theory except for one problem: Patients often have this silly expectation of having a say in the matter.

Whether it is working with uncomfortable gay folks or depression or child sexual abuse survivors, the research shows that sticking with the patient's goals and methods leads to quicker, longer lasting results. That is the data. (Scott Miller has done the metadata analysis on this.)

Personally, I have never been trained in repairative therapy and am highly skeptical about changing one's own (much less someone else's)sexual orientation. But I have had three patients come in asking that I help them do just that. The APA would have me tell them that I cannot work with them.

Instead, I tell them what I wrote here, that I am skeptical that they can change their orientation. But given that, if this is something they are interested in, knowing my skepticism, I would be happy to work with them. In the three cases over 16 years of work one person decided to be celibate, one person decided to forget the whole thing and loosen up, and the other decided that he was not gay but just sexually abused. I never decided this for them.

This issue is about self-determination for patients. Your mischaracterization misses that entirely.

An example is in my previous post: A Catholic group painted McEwan as a bigot over her post about gay adoption.

That's called free speech. And complaining about Catholics' beliefs is more free speech, and Catholics whining that they're being targeted is even more free speech.

That's not an example of how anyone's "beliefs, rights, or lives are threatened"; it's an example of beliefs being challenged.

Catholic Charities is already out of the adoption business in MA because of the gay adoption issue. Should Catholics be forced to support social policies that are against their beliefs?

Do you understand that it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the Catholics? Everyone should be free to follow the dictates of his conscience, and everyone is free to work through the political system to try to influence change in the laws and culture of our country.

Do you realize that by asserting that people's "beliefs, rights, and lives are threatened" by Catholics' involvement in politics, you are actually advocating some kind of multi-tier system in which the only people that get to participate in the political system are the ones who agree with you? Fortunately that's not the way it works.

There's a certain kind of English major who when confronted with any kind of problem must put it into the prism of race, gender, or class.

Mostly gender.

And everything can be explained by them using this simple mechanism. Anything that doesn't fall into that mechanism doesn't exist.

As all these brain-damaged people fall off the production line it's hard to know why anyone would hire them to do much of anything. They're a walking time-bomb for any corporation. Perhaps working on a Democrat's candidacy is what they're best trained for, but even there... they are more of a liability than anything else.

joan: That's called free speech. And complaining about Catholics' beliefs is more free speech, and Catholics whining that they're being targeted is even more free speech.

Yes, it's all free speech. Didn't say it wasn't, nor did I say Catholics can't be involved in politics, so that dismisses most of your post. What I don't buy are religious political conservatives playing CAIR's game of trying to silence their critics by calling them "bigots."

And with respect to The Catholic League and Michelle Malkin, it's not just free speech. It's also a lie. At least with McEwan, the lefties had it right.

(There may be some stuff in the Bible condemning lying? The 9th Commandment?)

I've looked at the stuff on McEwan with fresh eyes and it's manipulation. Malkin throws up the inflammatory stuff from Marcotte, then magically makes McEwan a carbon-copy.

But Malkin's link goes to a McEwan post angry at the anti-gay-rights religious conservatives for wanting to stop gay people from adopting babies. If that's being called "bigotry" to get people fired, it's religious political conservatives who don't want freedom of speech, except for themselves.

No, I don't think I'll go along with that being bigotry. The Catholic League and Malkin played a trick.

Why are people allowing a lefty's post about religious conservative hostility to gay rights to be transformed into "anti-Christian bigotry"?

“It is not enough that one foul-mouthed anti-Christian bigot, Amanda Marcotte, has quit. Melissa McEwan must go as well. Either Edwards shows her the door or she bolts on her own. There is no third choice—the Catholic League will see to it that this issue won’t go away.

“The fact that Marcotte had to quit suggests that Edwards doesn’t have the guts to do what is morally right. He has one more chance—fire McEwan now.”

When you know it's a lie, the Catholic League are revealed as scoundrels.

Limited to religious conservatives, and it's something millions of people agree with: You can have your religious beliefs but don't force them into my life. Not bigotry.

That's the entirety of the Catholic League's evidence that McEwan is an "anti-Christian bigot." It's B.S.

Unless you believe "bigotry" = disagreeing with religious political conservatives.....

IMO right wing blogs ought to issue McEwan an apology. Then, if they hate bigots, they should vigorously investigate the charges of anti-Semitism against Donahue to see if they should call for his firing from the Catholic League.

As for my previous post, I don't think we're on the same wavelength so it's pointless to restate it, and you read things into it that I didn't say. Yes, everyone should be able to follow their beliefs. If religious conservatives understood that, they'd see fewer offending things said about them. For now, I hope they see more.

I asked for evidence that anyone's rights, beliefs, or lives were threatened by Catholics' involvement in politics -- as you asserted -- and you can't give a single example, and yet you still feel comfortable dismissing my question.

I asked for evidence that anyone's rights, beliefs, or lives were threatened by Catholics' involvement in politics -- as you asserted -- and you can't give a single example, and yet you still feel comfortable dismissing my question.

The obvious example would be that the Catholic church lobbies to restrict abortion rights, gay rights, and reproductive health care.

Rev gave examples of Catholic advocacy: "The obvious example would be that the Catholic church lobbies to restrict abortion rights, gay rights, and reproductive health care."

Yes, those are some of the issues that they advocate. Many of us Christians see "abortion rights" as murder rights and an abomination. Now the people that bomb clinics and threaten or shoot doctors whom perform abortions are terrorists and should be treated as such.

But what do you call a person who seeks to change abortion laws through legal means? You call us citizens. Same as you. We advocate for the change of unjust laws, same as you. We care about America, same as you. If you cut us do we not bleed? (OK, that was a little over the top.)